Company Law:
The respondents have appealed against an interlocutor of the sheriff in which she found and declared that the affairs of the first respondent ("Estates") had been conducted in a manner which was unfairly prejudicial to the interests of the petitioner and ordained the second respondent to purchase the petitioners shareholding in the company. The petitioners application to the sheriff court invoked the provisions of Part XVII of the Companies Act 1985. The appeal counsel submit that the sheriff wa ...
|
Briefly the history of the case is that the Pursuers were granted a patent which the defenders opposed.After procedure the the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office rejected the opposition. Thereafter the defenders filed an appeal against this
|
Action for Recovery:
In the principal action the pursuers seek to recover payment for works they carried out in terms of a Sub-Contract between the parties. Some time after the action was raised the parties agreed that the Court be invited to address a number of questions. The question addressed in this judgement is question F which relates to the counterclaim: "Is the counterclaim relevant or pled (whether in the pleadings or in the discs or documents lodged in process) with sufficient specification to allow it to ...
|
Civil
This was an action by one of the vendors of a limited company against the purchasers. The contract between the parties was a Share Sale Agreement dated 22 August 1998. The vendors agreed to sell to the defenders the majority of the issued share capital of a limited company, Highland Marine Limited. They also agreed to procure the sale to the defenders of the balance of the issued share capital, owned by another party. In return, the defenders agreed to pay the price of £87,000 .The vendor sought ...
|
Pursuers claim for damages for the premature termination of certain contractual arrangements under which they were to provide retail and catering services for the defenders at Prestwick Airport. According to the Pursuers draft the terms of draft agreement
|
Interpretation of missives.The missives contain provisions respecting the construction of internal road works and the present dispute relates to these provisions. The missives place obligations on the defenders which the pursuers contend have not been fully implemented.
|
The defenders are seeking to have the action dismissed on the basis that the action was time barred and lacking in relevancy. The pursuer avers that he suffered anxiety distress and ill-health as a consequence of the defenders breach of probation and these are averments of personal injury.
|
The pursuers have raised this action against the defenders on the basis that they agreed a contract with the defenders which would entitle them to payment of a monthly sum for the duration of the defenders facilities management contract with BT which was for five years. Of a total sixty payments only 29 were made. The defenders contend that they have paid all sums contractually due to the due to the pursuers.
|
Present litigations are concerned with the validity or otherwise of a Notice of Arbitration which referred the dispute between the parties to arbitration.In Action No.1 Scrabster seek a declarator that the Notice was invalid and of no effect. The basis of Scrabsters attack on the validity of the Notice of Arbitration is that it failed to comply with the provisions of Article 1 of the Scottish Arbitration Code.
|
Initially an application for taxi licences from the respondents was refused. It was then allowed following an appeal to the sheriff court. The appellants have exercised their right as a party to the appeal to the sheriff to appeal to this court against that decision under para 18(12) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act.
|
| 1 2 |